Jesus’s Adelphoi: Scripture and Early Christian Testimony

[quietthinker]

Catholic — but the explanation I gave wasn’t a denominational argument. It came from how I study Scripture: languages, historical context, and early Christian sources. Anyone from any background can use the same approach if they choose.

Isn't it interesting that anyone who has an axe to grind, so to speak, will use the identical argument.....be it Jw's, Mormons, Evangelicals, SDA's, Pentecostals etc.

As much as I hold the Bible as my reference, HOW I understand is the factor that determines WHAT I understand.
To give an example, There is much repetition and noise re being 'biblical' as if that were the great elixir and final word to a point of view.
It is conveniently forgotten or dismissed that genocide and viewing women as second class citizens at best and mens right to active subjugation of them at worst in the OT is also biblical. Without understanding these elements, all the 'banging and clanging' about biblical is nothing but a fart in the wind.

We can then ask, what is it that enables us to see as it is intended?

 

[Moonwood]

Isn't it interesting that anyone who has an axe to grind, so to speak, will use the identical argument.....be it Jw's, Mormons, Evangelicals, SDA's, Pentecostals etc.

As much as I hold the Bible as my reference, HOW I understand is the factor that determines WHAT I understand.
To give an example, There is much repetition and noise re being 'biblical' as if that were the great elixir and final word to a point of view.
It is conveniently forgotten or dismissed that genocide and viewing women as second class citizens at best and mens right to active subjugation of them at worst in the OT is also biblical. Without understanding these elements, all the 'banging and clanging' about biblical is nothing but a fart in the wind.

We can then ask, what is it that enables us to see as it is intended?

Your question is really about interpretive trust — how we know we’re seeing what the text intends. That’s exactly why I use the method I described. It’s not about labels; it’s about grounding interpretation in the world the text came from. That’s why I rely on languages, context, and early Christian understanding — those elements anchor interpretation in something older and more stable than modern denominational debates.

As for what enables us to “see as intended,” I’d say it’s a combination of humility, historical awareness, and a willingness to let the text speak in its own world rather than ours.

 

[quietthinker]

Your question is really about interpretive trust — how we know we’re seeing what the text intends. That’s exactly why I use the method I described. It’s not about labels; it’s about grounding interpretation in the world the text came from. That’s why I rely on languages, context, and early Christian understanding — those elements anchor interpretation in something older and more stable than modern denominational debates.

I would add, the religious Jews in Jesus day and even today use these methods to arrive at THEIR outcomes.

As for what enables us to “see as intended,” I’d say it’s a combination of humility, historical awareness, and a willingness to let the text speak in its own world rather than ours.

These are helpful and useful even in Science....but to what end?
I would ask this, Jesus' spearhead, if we can call it that, was 'The Kingdom of God'. His actions, his parables and stories, his death and resurrection even the recruiting of the twelve are summarised this. Can we put teeth to it, can we connect the rubber with the road so the wheels don't just spin with 'theological yada yada'?

 

[Moonwood]

I would add, the religious Jews in Jesus day and even today use these methods to arrive at THEIR outcomes.

That’s true — religious Jews in Jesus’ day and today used similar interpretive tools. But the key difference is that they were interpreting Torah, not the New Testament, and Jesus Himself often corrected the outcomes those methods produced.

That’s actually why grounding interpretation in languages, context, and first‑century Jewish thought matters so much. It lets us hear Jesus’ teaching inside the world He was speaking to — including the places where He affirmed Jewish expectations and the places where He overturned them.

So yes, different groups can use similar tools and reach different conclusions. But the value of the method isn’t in guaranteeing identical outcomes — it’s in making sure we’re reading the text inside the world that produced it, rather than projecting modern assumptions onto it.

I would add, the religious Jews in Jesus day and even today use these methods to arrive at THEIR outcomes.

These are helpful and useful even in Science....but to what end?
I would ask this, Jesus' spearhead, if we can call it that, was 'The Kingdom of God'. His actions, his parables and stories, his death and resurrection even the recruiting of the twelve are summarised this. Can we put teeth to it, can we connect the rubber with the road so the wheels don't just spin with 'theological yada yada'?

I agree that the Kingdom of God is the center of Jesus’ mission — His teaching, His actions, His parables, His death and resurrection all orbit that theme.

And this is exactly where historical context and interpretive humility matter. Because “Kingdom of God” wasn’t a vague spiritual slogan in Jesus’ world. It had a very specific meaning in first‑century Judaism:

• God’s reign breaking into history
• God restoring His people
• God overturning oppressive powers
• God renewing creation
• God calling Israel to faithfulness

When we read Jesus’ words inside that world, the “rubber meets the road” immediately. The Kingdom becomes concrete:

• It’s why Jesus heals — signs of God’s reign breaking in.
• It’s why He forgives — restoring people into God’s covenant family.
• It’s why He confronts injustice — God’s reign displacing human corruption.
• It’s why He calls disciples — forming a community that lives under God’s rule.
• It’s why He dies and rises — the decisive victory of God’s reign over sin and death.

So the interpretive method isn’t “theological yada yada.” It’s what lets us see the Kingdom the way Jesus’ own audience saw it — as something real, present, and world‑changing, not just a modern religious metaphor.

That’s the “teeth” you’re asking for.
The Kingdom becomes concrete when we let the text speak in its own world.

 

[Moonwood]

Notice who is speaking in Mat 13:55 ... the words are spoken by unbelieving people in Nazareth who regarded Joseph as Jesus' biological father. Context is crucial.

Mark, pointing out that the crowd “regarded Joseph as Jesus’ biological father” doesn’t help your argument — it proves my point.

Matthew’s Gospel makes clear that Joseph is not Jesus’s biological father:

• Matthew 1:18, 20
• Luke 1: 34–35
• Luke 3:23

So the crowd’s belief is mistaken.

And if the crowd is mistaken about Joseph’s biological relationship to Jesus, then their statement cannot be treated as authoritative genealogical evidence about James, Joseph, Simon and Judas.

You can’t say:

• “The crowd believed Joseph was Jesus’s biological father,” even though Matthew says that belief is wrong,

but then insist:

• “The crowd must be correct about Jesus's brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas,”

when both claims come from the same unbelieving, mistaken crowd in the same sentence.

That is not “context.”

That is selective acceptance based on the conclusion you want.

And nothing in the text requires “same womb.”

In biblical Greek, adelphos/adelphoi regularly includes cousins, nephews, and other male relatives. So the crowd could easily be using adelphoi ("brothers") in the ordinary Jewish sense of “kinsmen, or relatives” just as Scripture consistently does.

And you're discarding the verses that clarify the relationship of James, Joseph, Simon and Judas to Jesus (Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:40, 16:1; Luke 24:10; John 19:25), while fully accepting the verses that clarify Joseph’s relationship to Him (Matthew 1:18, 20; Luke 1: 34–35, 3:23). You can’t apply contextual correction to Joseph but forbid contextual correction to James, Joseph, Simon and Judas.

That is selective interpretation, not consistent exegesis.

Mary, the wife of Clopas and sister-in-law of Jesus's Mother, is explicitly named the mother of James and Joseph (Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:40; John 19:25) — two of the men named in Matthew 13:55. The earliest Christian writers affirm the same and add that Symeon (Simon) and Jude (Judas) are also her and Clopas's sons.

And you also agreed that Clopas is Joseph’s brother.

So you already accept:

• Clopas is Joseph’s brother
• Mary of Clopas is the mother of James and Joseph
• Early Christian testimony identifies Simon and Jude as their siblings

So what reason do you have for accepting Joseph as Clopas’s brother and Mary as Clopas’s wife, but discarding the evidence that links Clopas and Mary's sons to Jesus’s adelphoi?

You’re accepting half of the genealogy and discarding the half that contradicts your conclusion.

There is no verse in Matthew's Gospel that uses adelphos as other than biological siblings or spiritual brethren.

That is demonstrably incorrect. Matthew’s Gospel frequently uses adelphos/adelphoi outside of strict biological siblings or spiritual brothers.

In biblical Greek, and within Matthew specifically, adelphos/adelphoi are used broadly for national kinship, close associations, and community:

• Fellow Countrymen / Kinsmen:
  Jesus uses adelphos in Matthew 5:22–24 when He warns against being angry with your “brother.” In this context, adelphos refers to a fellow Israelite, neighbor, or countryman — not a biological sibling and not a modern “spiritual brother."
  
  
• Familial metaphor / redefined kinship:
  Jesus uses adelphoi in Matthew 12:49–50 metaphorically to describe those who do the will of His Father — including His disciples — as His “brothers,” but in a family‑redefinition context.
  
  
• Community‑level kinship (disciples):
  Jesus uses adelphoi in Matthew 23:8 to refer to His followers and students as “brothers,” expressing a community‑level kinship among His disciples.
  
  
• The Apostles:
  Jesus uses adelphoi in Matthew 28:10 when He tells the women to go tell His brothers to go to Galilee, specifically referencing the apostles.

Even BDAG—the standard Protestant Greek lexicon—notes that adelphos/adelphoi has multiple non‑biological uses throughout the NT.

So why are you restricting adelphos/adelphoi to only “biological or spiritual brothers” within Matthew's Gospel when Matthew himself identifies James and Joseph — two of Jesus's adelphoi named in Matthew 13:55 — as sons of Mary of Clopas (Matthew 27:56), not Mary the mother of Jesus? And Mark (15:40; 16:1), Luke (24:10), John (19:25), and early Christian writers all confirm the same genealogy.

That is selective restriction, not consistent exegesis.

If you restrict adelphos to “biological or spiritual brothers only” in Matthew, you end up misreading Jesus’s teaching about ordinary interactions with fellow Israelites, neighbors, and the broader community. Matthew uses adelphos/adelphoi in multiple non‑biological senses, and the rigid rule you’re imposing simply isn’t in the text.

 

[markalan]

Mark, pointing out that the crowd “regarded Joseph as Jesus’ biological father” doesn’t help your argument — it proves my point.

Matthew’s Gospel makes clear that Joseph is not Jesus’s biological father:

• Matthew 1:18, 20
• Luke 1: 34–35
• Luke 3:23

So the crowd’s belief is mistaken.

And if the crowd is mistaken about Joseph’s biological relationship to Jesus, then their statement cannot be treated as authoritative genealogical evidence about James, Joseph, Simon and Judas.

You can’t say:

• “The crowd believed Joseph was Jesus’s biological father,” even though Matthew says that belief is wrong,

but then insist:

• “The crowd must be correct about Jesus's brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas,”

when both claims come from the same unbelieving, mistaken crowd in the same sentence.

That is not “context.”

That is selective acceptance based on the conclusion you want.

And nothing in the text requires “same womb.”

In biblical Greek, adelphos/adelphoi regularly includes cousins, nephews, and other male relatives. So the crowd could easily be using adelphoi ("brothers") in the ordinary Jewish sense of “kinsmen, or relatives” just as Scripture consistently does.

And you're discarding the verses that clarify the relationship of James, Joseph, Simon and Judas to Jesus (Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:40, 16:1; Luke 24:10; John 19:25), while fully accepting the verses that clarify Joseph’s relationship to Him (Matthew 1:18, 20; Luke 1: 34–35, 3:23). You can’t apply contextual correction to Joseph but forbid contextual correction to James, Joseph, Simon and Judas.

That is selective interpretation, not consistent exegesis.

Mary, the wife of Clopas and sister-in-law of Jesus's Mother, is explicitly named the mother of James and Joseph (Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:40; John 19:25) — two of the men named in Matthew 13:55. The earliest Christian writers affirm the same and add that Symeon (Simon) and Jude (Judas) are also her and Clopas's sons.

And you also agreed that Clopas is Joseph’s brother.

So you already accept:

• Clopas is Joseph’s brother
• Mary of Clopas is the mother of James and Joseph
• Early Christian testimony identifies Simon and Jude as their siblings

So what reason do you have for accepting Joseph as Clopas’s brother and Mary as Clopas’s wife, but discarding the evidence that links Clopas and Mary's sons to Jesus’s adelphoi?

You’re accepting half of the genealogy and discarding the half that contradicts your conclusion.



That is demonstrably incorrect. Matthew’s Gospel frequently uses adelphos/adelphoi outside of strict biological siblings or spiritual brothers.

In biblical Greek, and within Matthew specifically, adelphos/adelphoi are used broadly for national kinship, close associations, and community:

• Fellow Countrymen / Kinsmen:
  Jesus uses adelphos in Matthew 5:22–24 when He warns against being angry with your “brother.” In this context, adelphos refers to a fellow Israelite, neighbor, or countryman — not a biological sibling and not a modern “spiritual brother."
  
  
• Familial metaphor / redefined kinship:
  Jesus uses adelphoi in Matthew 12:49–50 metaphorically to describe those who do the will of His Father — including His disciples — as His “brothers,” but in a family‑redefinition context.
  
  
• Community‑level kinship (disciples):
  Jesus uses adelphoi in Matthew 23:8 to refer to His followers and students as “brothers,” expressing a community‑level kinship among His disciples.
  
  
• The Apostles:
  Jesus uses adelphoi in Matthew 28:10 when He tells the women to go tell His brothers to go to Galilee, specifically referencing the apostles.

Even BDAG—the standard Protestant Greek lexicon—notes that adelphos/adelphoi has multiple non‑biological uses throughout the NT.

So why are you restricting adelphos/adelphoi to only “biological or spiritual brothers” within Matthew's Gospel when Matthew himself identifies James and Joseph — two of Jesus's adelphoi named in Matthew 13:55 — as sons of Mary of Clopas (Matthew 27:56), not Mary the mother of Jesus? And Mark (15:40; 16:1), Luke (24:10), John (19:25), and early Christian writers all confirm the same genealogy.

That is selective restriction, not consistent exegesis.

If you restrict adelphos to “biological or spiritual brothers only” in Matthew, you end up misreading Jesus’s teaching about ordinary interactions with fellow Israelites, neighbors, and the broader community. Matthew uses adelphos/adelphoi in multiple non‑biological senses, and the rigid rule you’re imposing simply isn’t in the text.

In spite of torturing the text mercilessly, you have yet to demonstrate one place where Matthew uses adelphos for a familial relationship other than biological sibling.

 

[Moonwood]

In spite of torturing the text mercilessly, you have yet to demonstrate one place where Matthew uses adelphos for a familial relationship other than biological sibling.

You’re redefining “familial” to mean only “children of the same mother,” but Matthew never uses adelphos that way — not even in Matthew 13:55. Matthew uses adelphos for multiple familial relationships that are not biological siblings:

• Fellow Countrymen / Kinsmen:
  Jesus uses adelphos in Matthew 5:22–24 when He warns against being angry with your “brother.” In this context, adelphos refers to a fellow Israelite, neighbor, or countryman — not a biological sibling and not a modern “spiritual brother."
  
  
• Familial metaphor / redefined kinship:
  Jesus uses adelphoi in Matthew 12:49–50 metaphorically to describe those who do the will of His Father — including His disciples — as His “brothers,” but in a family‑redefinition context.
  
  
• Community‑level kinship (disciples):
  Jesus uses adelphoi in Matthew 23:8 to refer to His followers and students as “brothers,” expressing a community‑level kinship among His disciples.
  
  
• The Apostles:
  Jesus uses adelphoi in Matthew 28:10 when He tells the women to go tell His brothers to go to Galilee, specifically referencing the apostles.

Even BDAG—the standard Protestant Greek lexicon—notes that adelphos/adelphoi has multiple non‑biological uses throughout the NT.

And when Matthew wants to show biological siblings clearly, he names the parent — as with James and John, sons of Zebedee. But Matthew never names Mary as the mother of James and Joseph. He names Mary of Clopas as their mother in Matthew 27:56. Matthew’s biological usage supports my argument, not yours.

So why are you restricting adelphos/adelphoi to only “biological or spiritual brothers” within Matthew's Gospel when Matthew himself identifies James and Joseph — two of Jesus's adelphoi named in Matthew 13:55 — as sons of Mary of Clopas (Matthew 27:56), not Mary the mother of Jesus? And Mark (15:40; 16:1), Luke (24:10), John (19:25), and early Christian writers all confirm the same genealogy.

That is selective restriction, not consistent exegesis.

If you restrict adelphos to “biological or spiritual brothers only” in Matthew, you end up misreading Jesus’s teaching about ordinary interactions with fellow Israelites, neighbors, and the broader community. Matthew uses adelphos/adelphoi in multiple non‑biological senses, and the rigid rule you’re imposing simply isn’t in the text.

And you have yet to address this:

Matthew’s Gospel makes clear that Joseph is not Jesus’s biological father:

• Matthew 1:18, 20
• Luke 1: 34–35
• Luke 3:23

So the crowd’s belief is mistaken.

And if the crowd is mistaken about Joseph’s biological relationship to Jesus, then their statement cannot be treated as authoritative genealogical evidence about James, Joseph, Simon and Judas.

You can’t say:

• “The crowd believed Joseph was Jesus’s biological father,” even though Matthew says that belief is wrong,

but then insist:

• “The crowd must be correct about Jesus's brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas,”

when both claims come from the same unbelieving, mistaken crowd in the same sentence.

That is not “context.”

That is selective acceptance based on the conclusion you want.

And nothing in the text requires “same womb.”

In biblical Greek, adelphos/adelphoi regularly includes cousins, nephews, and other male relatives. So the crowd could easily be using adelphoi ("brothers") in the ordinary Jewish sense of “kinsmen, or relatives” just as Scripture consistently does.

And you're discarding the verses that clarify the relationship of James, Joseph, Simon and Judas to Jesus (Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:40, 16:1; Luke 24:10; John 19:25), while fully accepting the verses that clarify Joseph’s relationship to Him (Matthew 1:18, 20; Luke 1: 34–35, 3:23). You can’t apply contextual correction to Joseph but forbid contextual correction to James, Joseph, Simon and Judas.

That is selective interpretation, not consistent exegesis.

Mary, the wife of Clopas and sister-in-law of Jesus's Mother, is explicitly named the mother of James and Joseph (Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:40; John 19:25) — two of the men named in Matthew 13:55. The earliest Christian writers affirm the same and add that Symeon (Simon) and Jude (Judas) are also her and Clopas's sons.

And you also agreed that Clopas is Joseph’s brother.

So you already accept:

• Clopas is Joseph’s brother
• Mary of Clopas is the mother of James and Joseph
• Early Christian testimony identifies Simon and Jude as their siblings

So what reason do you have for accepting Joseph as Clopas’s brother and Mary as Clopas’s wife, but discarding the evidence that links Clopas and Mary's sons to Jesus’s adelphoi?

You’re accepting half of the genealogy and discarding the half that contradicts your conclusion.

 

[markalan]

You’re redefining “familial” to mean only “children of the same mother,” but Matthew never uses adelphos that way — not even in Matthew 13:55. Matthew uses adelphos for multiple familial relationships that are not biological siblings:

• Fellow Countrymen / Kinsmen:
  Jesus uses adelphos in Matthew 5:22–24 when He warns against being angry with your “brother.” In this context, adelphos refers to a fellow Israelite, neighbor, or countryman — not a biological sibling and not a modern “spiritual brother."
  
  
• Familial metaphor / redefined kinship:
  Jesus uses adelphoi in Matthew 12:49–50 metaphorically to describe those who do the will of His Father — including His disciples — as His “brothers,” but in a family‑redefinition context.
  
  
• Community‑level kinship (disciples):
  Jesus uses adelphoi in Matthew 23:8 to refer to His followers and students as “brothers,” expressing a community‑level kinship among His disciples.
  
  
• The Apostles:
  Jesus uses adelphoi in Matthew 28:10 when He tells the women to go tell His brothers to go to Galilee, specifically referencing the apostles.

Even BDAG—the standard Protestant Greek lexicon—notes that adelphos/adelphoi has multiple non‑biological uses throughout the NT.

And when Matthew wants to show biological siblings clearly, he names the parent — as with James and John, sons of Zebedee. But Matthew never names Mary as the mother of James and Joseph. He names Mary of Clopas as their mother in Matthew 27:56. Matthew’s biological usage supports my argument, not yours.

So why are you restricting adelphos/adelphoi to only “biological or spiritual brothers” within Matthew's Gospel when Matthew himself identifies James and Joseph — two of Jesus's adelphoi named in Matthew 13:55 — as sons of Mary of Clopas (Matthew 27:56), not Mary the mother of Jesus? And Mark (15:40; 16:1), Luke (24:10), John (19:25), and early Christian writers all confirm the same genealogy.

That is selective restriction, not consistent exegesis.

If you restrict adelphos to “biological or spiritual brothers only” in Matthew, you end up misreading Jesus’s teaching about ordinary interactions with fellow Israelites, neighbors, and the broader community. Matthew uses adelphos/adelphoi in multiple non‑biological senses, and the rigid rule you’re imposing simply isn’t in the text.

And you have yet to address this:

Matthew’s Gospel makes clear that Joseph is not Jesus’s biological father:

• Matthew 1:18, 20
• Luke 1: 34–35
• Luke 3:23

So the crowd’s belief is mistaken.

And if the crowd is mistaken about Joseph’s biological relationship to Jesus, then their statement cannot be treated as authoritative genealogical evidence about James, Joseph, Simon and Judas.

You can’t say:

• “The crowd believed Joseph was Jesus’s biological father,” even though Matthew says that belief is wrong,

but then insist:

• “The crowd must be correct about Jesus's brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas,”

when both claims come from the same unbelieving, mistaken crowd in the same sentence.

That is not “context.”

That is selective acceptance based on the conclusion you want.

And nothing in the text requires “same womb.”

In biblical Greek, adelphos/adelphoi regularly includes cousins, nephews, and other male relatives. So the crowd could easily be using adelphoi ("brothers") in the ordinary Jewish sense of “kinsmen, or relatives” just as Scripture consistently does.

And you're discarding the verses that clarify the relationship of James, Joseph, Simon and Judas to Jesus (Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:40, 16:1; Luke 24:10; John 19:25), while fully accepting the verses that clarify Joseph’s relationship to Him (Matthew 1:18, 20; Luke 1: 34–35, 3:23). You can’t apply contextual correction to Joseph but forbid contextual correction to James, Joseph, Simon and Judas.

That is selective interpretation, not consistent exegesis.

Mary, the wife of Clopas and sister-in-law of Jesus's Mother, is explicitly named the mother of James and Joseph (Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:40; John 19:25) — two of the men named in Matthew 13:55. The earliest Christian writers affirm the same and add that Symeon (Simon) and Jude (Judas) are also her and Clopas's sons.

And you also agreed that Clopas is Joseph’s brother.

So you already accept:

• Clopas is Joseph’s brother
• Mary of Clopas is the mother of James and Joseph
• Early Christian testimony identifies Simon and Jude as their siblings

So what reason do you have for accepting Joseph as Clopas’s brother and Mary as Clopas’s wife, but discarding the evidence that links Clopas and Mary's sons to Jesus’s adelphoi?

You’re accepting half of the genealogy and discarding the half that contradicts your conclusion.

When asked to demonstrate one place where Matthew uses adelphos for a familial relationship other than biological sibling, you go blithely ahead giving four examples that are not familial relationships. That is a strawman argument.

 

[Moonwood]

When asked to demonstrate one place where Matthew uses adelphos for a familial relationship other than biological sibling, you go blithely ahead giving four examples that are not familial relationships. That is a strawman argument.

Those examples are not a strawman. They are familial relationships in Jewish kinship. You’re redefining “familial” to mean only “children of the same mother,” but Matthew never uses adelphos that way. Matthew uses adelphos for multiple kinds of family — national, communal, apostolic, and redefined family — not just biological siblings.

And I've told you before that Matthew 13:55 is one of many examples where Matthew uses adelphos for a familial relationship other than biological sibling. And we know this because Matthew 27:56 explicitly names James and Joseph — two of Jesus’s four adelphoi in Matthew 13:55 — as the sons of Mary of Clopas, not Mary the mother of Jesus.

You ignore this.

Just like you ignore my point about Joseph.
Matthew’s Gospel makes it clear that Joseph is not Jesus’s biological father:

• Matthew 1:18, 20
• Luke 1: 34–35
• Luke 3:23

So the crowd’s belief is mistaken.

And if the crowd is mistaken about Joseph’s biological relationship to Jesus, then their statement cannot be treated as authoritative genealogical evidence about James, Joseph, Simon and Judas.
You can’t say:

• “The crowd believed Joseph was Jesus’s biological father,” even though Matthew says that belief is wrong,

but then insist:

• “The crowd must be correct about Jesus's brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas,”

when both claims come from the same unbelieving, mistaken crowd in the same sentence.

That is not “context.”

That is selective acceptance based on the conclusion you want.

And nothing in the text requires “same womb.”

In biblical Greek, adelphos/adelphoi regularly includes cousins, nephews, and other male relatives. So the crowd could easily be using adelphoi ("brothers") in the ordinary Jewish sense of “kinsmen, or relatives” just as Scripture consistently does.

And you're discarding the verses that clarify the relationship of James, Joseph, Simon and Judas to Jesus (Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:40, 16:1; Luke 24:10; John 19:25), while fully accepting the verses that clarify Joseph’s relationship to Him (Matthew 1:18, 20; Luke 1: 34–35, 3:23). You can’t apply contextual correction to Joseph but forbid contextual correction to James, Joseph, Simon and Judas.

That is selective interpretation, not consistent exegesis.

 

[markalan]

Those examples are not a strawman. They are familial relationships in Jewish kinship. You’re redefining “familial” to mean only “children of the same mother,” but Matthew never uses adelphos that way. Matthew uses adelphos for multiple kinds of family — national, communal, apostolic, and redefined family — not just biological siblings.

Mat 13:55-56 speaks of close familial relationships - mother, father, brothers, sisters ... so don't go off on a tangent about "national, communal, apostolic, and redefined family" ... that is the strawman argument you keep repeating.

 

[sondring7]

Mat 13:55-56 speaks of close familial relationships - mother, father, brothers, sisters ... so don't go off on a tangent about "national, communal, apostolic, and redefined family" ... that is the strawman argument you keep repeating.

Mark you are a sucker for punishment.
Just use the IGNORE button so then you can use your time in decent constructive conversation with those who try to do likewise :)

 

[markalan]

Mark you are a sucker for punishment.
Just use the IGNORE button so then you can use your time in decent constructive conversation with those who try to do likewise :)

It's a slow day

 

[Moonwood]

...so don't go off on a tangent about "national, communal, apostolic, and redefined family" ... that is the strawman argument you keep repeating.

Matthew 5:22–24, 12:49–50, 23:8, 10 are not a strawman. They are familial relationships in Jewish kinship. You’re redefining “familial” to mean only “children of the same mother,” but Matthew never uses adelphos that way. Matthew uses adelphos for multiple kinds of family — national, communal, apostolic, kinsmen/relatives, and redefined family — not just biological siblings.

Matthew 13:55-56 speaks of close familial relationships - mother, father, brothers, sisters ...

And yet Matthew’s Gospel makes it clear elsewhere that Joseph is not Jesus’s biological father:

• Matthew 1:18, 20

So even within that “close familial” list, one of the relationships is already non‑biological.

Likewise, Matthew makes it clear elsewhere that James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas are not Jesus's biological siblings:

• Matthew 27:56

Matthew explicitly names James and Joseph — two of Jesus’s four adelphoi in Matthew 13:55 — as the sons of Mary of Clopas, not Mary the mother of Jesus.

This is not speculation.
This is Matthew’s own genealogy.

And it is corroborated by:

• Mark 15:40, 16:1
• Luke 24:10
• John 19:25

All four Gospels identify Mary of Clopas as the mother of James and Joseph.

So Matthew 13:55-56 cannot be referring to biological siblings any more than it is referring to Joseph as Jesus’s biological father.
Both assumptions come from the same mistaken crowd in the same sentence — and Matthew corrects both elsewhere.

If Matthew corrects the crowd about Joseph’s relationship to Jesus, you cannot treat the crowd’s claim about Jesus’s “brothers” as authoritative genealogy.

Matthew’s own clarification in 27:56 shows that two of those “brothers” have a different mother.

That means Matthew 13:55–56 is not describing biological siblings.
It is describing extended family, exactly as adelphos regularly does in Jewish kinship.

 

[markalan]

So Matthew 13:55–56 cannot be referring to biological siblings any more than it is referring to Joseph as Jesus’s biological father.
Both assumptions come from the same mistaken crowd in the same sentence — and Matthew corrects both elsewhere.

If I called called someone a pediatrician when they are actually a geriatrician ... it would not alter the meaning of the word "pediatrician".

 

[Moonwood]

If I called called someone a pediatrician when they are actually a geriatrician ... it would not alter the meaning of the word "pediatrician".

Your analogy doesn’t match what’s happening in Matthew 13:55–56.
If you mislabel someone a pediatrician when they’re actually a geriatrician, you’re misidentifying a profession. That mistake doesn’t change the meaning of the word “pediatrician.”

But Matthew 13:55–56 isn’t about professions.
It’s about genealogical relationships — and Matthew himself corrects the crowd’s genealogical assumptions elsewhere.

That’s the key difference.

A mistaken job title doesn’t alter the meaning of “pediatrician.”
But a mistaken genealogy does alter how we interpret the crowd’s genealogical claims.

And Matthew does correct them.


Matthew corrects the crowd on two genealogical points:

1. Joseph is not Jesus’s biological father.
   Matthew 1:18, 20
   
   
2. James and Joseph are not Jesus’s biological siblings.
   Matthew 27:56

These are not “labels.”
These are family relationships, and Matthew clarifies them directly.


Matthew explicitly names James and Joseph — two of the “brothers” in Matthew 13:55 — as the sons of Mary of Clopas, not Mary the mother of Jesus.

This is Matthew’s own genealogy.

And it is corroborated by:

• Mark 15:40, 16:1
• Luke 24:10
• John 19:25

All four Gospels identify Mary of Clopas as the mother of James and Joseph.

So Matthew 13:55–56 cannot be referring to biological siblings any more than it is referring to Joseph as Jesus’s biological father.
Both assumptions come from the same mistaken crowd in the same sentence — and Matthew corrects both elsewhere.

If Matthew corrects the crowd about Joseph’s relationship to Jesus, you cannot treat the crowd’s claim about Jesus’s “brothers” as authoritative genealogy.

Matthew’s own clarification in 27:56 shows that two of those “brothers” have a different mother.

That means Matthew 13:55–56 is not describing biological siblings. It is describing extended family — exactly how adelphos regularly functions in Jewish kinship.

 

[markalan]

So Matthew 13:55–56 cannot be referring to biological siblings any more than it is referring to Joseph as Jesus’s biological father.
Both assumptions come from the same mistaken crowd in the same sentence — and Matthew corrects both elsewhere.

Because the crowd was wrong about Joseph being Jesus' father, does not mean the word adelphos is used wrongly by the crowd in conveying their meaning ... and their meaning was a biological relationship.

Since you are confused by my previous analogy, let me try again:
Two of my grandsons look very much alike and are often mistaken as brothers.
When someone calls them brothers, it does not change the meaning they intended to convey ... they are using the word "brothers" correctly to convey their meaning.

 

[Moonwood]

Because the crowd was wrong about Joseph being Jesus' father, does not mean the word adelphos is used wrongly by the crowd in conveying their meaning ... and their meaning was a biological relationship.

Since you are confused by my previous analogy, let me try again:
Two of my grandsons look very much alike and are often mistaken as brothers.
When someone calls them brothers, it does not change the meaning they intended to convey ... they are using the word "brothers" correctly to convey their meaning.

I wasn’t confused by your previous analogy. The issue is that your analogy doesn’t match what’s happening in Matthew, and I already explained why.

Your new analogy still doesn’t fit what’s happening in Matthew.
If someone mistakenly calls your grandsons “brothers,” they are misidentifying a relationship, but they are still using the word “brothers” to convey what they think is a biological relationship.

That’s exactly the point.

The crowd in Matthew 13:55–56 is doing the same thing:
they are misidentifying the relationship.

And Matthew corrects their mistaken genealogy elsewhere.

A mistaken identification does not change the meaning of the word — but it absolutely changes whether the identification is true.

And Matthew tells us plainly that the crowd’s identification is false in two ways:

1. Joseph is not Jesus’s biological father.
   Matthew 1:18, 20
   
   
2. James and Joseph are not Jesus’s biological siblings.
   Matthew 27:56

These are not “labels.”
These are genealogical relationships, and Matthew corrects them directly.


Matthew explicitly names James and Joseph — two of the “brothers” in Matthew 13:55 — as the sons of Mary of Clopas, not Mary the mother of Jesus.

This is Matthew’s own genealogy.

And it is corroborated by:

• Mark 15:40, 16:1
• Luke 24:10
• John 19:25

All four Gospels identify Mary of Clopas as the mother of James and Joseph.


So your analogy doesn’t help you, because:

• Calling your grandsons “brothers” doesn’t make them biological brothers.
• Calling Jesus’s relatives “brothers” doesn’t make them biological brothers.
• And Matthew explicitly tells us they aren’t biological brothers.

The crowd’s meaning was biological — but their identification was wrong, and Matthew corrects it.

Just as Matthew corrects their mistaken identification of Joseph as Jesus’s biological father.

Once Matthew corrects the genealogy, the crowd’s assumption in 13:55–56 cannot be treated as authoritative.

Matthew’s own clarification in 27:56 shows that two of those “brothers” have a different mother.

That means Matthew 13:55–56 is not describing biological siblings.
It is describing extended family — exactly how adelphos regularly functions in Jewish kinship.

 

[markalan]

Your analogy still doesn’t fit what’s happening in Matthew.
If someone mistakenly calls your grandsons “brothers,” they are misidentifying a relationship, but they are still using the word “brothers” to convey what they think is a biological relationship.

That’s exactly the point.

The crowd in Matthew 13:55–56 is doing the same thing:
they are misidentifying the relationship.

And Matthew corrects their mistaken genealogy elsewhere.

A mistaken identification does not change the meaning of the word — but it absolutely changes whether the identification is true.

And Matthew tells us plainly that the crowd’s identification is false in two ways:

1. Joseph is not Jesus’s biological father.
   Matthew 1:18, 20
   
   
2. James and Joseph are not Jesus’s biological siblings.
   Matthew 27:56

These are not “labels.”
These are genealogical relationships, and Matthew corrects them directly.


Matthew explicitly names James and Joseph — two of the “brothers” in Matthew 13:55 — as the sons of Mary of Clopas, not Mary the mother of Jesus.

This is Matthew’s own genealogy.

And it is corroborated by:

• Mark 15:40, 16:1
• Luke 24:10
• John 19:25

All four Gospels identify Mary of Clopas as the mother of James and Joseph.


So your analogy doesn’t help you, because:

• Calling your grandsons “brothers” doesn’t make them biological brothers.
• Calling Jesus’s relatives “brothers” doesn’t make them biological brothers.
• And Matthew explicitly tells us they aren’t biological brothers.

The crowd’s meaning was biological — but their identification was wrong, and Matthew corrects it.

Just as Matthew corrects their mistaken identification of Joseph as Jesus’s biological father.

Once Matthew corrects the genealogy, the crowd’s assumption in 13:55–56 cannot be treated as authoritative.

Matthew’s own clarification in 27:56 shows that two of those “brothers” have a different mother.

That means Matthew 13:55–56 is not describing biological siblings.
It is describing extended family — exactly how adelphos regularly functions in Jewish kinship.

Matthew's identification of Jesus has nothing to do with the scene in Nazareth. That is another strawman.

 

[Moonwood]

Matthew's identification of Jesus has nothing to do with the scene in Nazareth. That is another strawman.

If you’re going to discount what Matthew says elsewhere, then you must also discount Matthew 1:18–20. You cannot use Matthew’s correction about Joseph while rejecting Matthew’s correction about James and Joseph. Both corrections come from outside the Nazareth scene.

It’s not a strawman. It’s basic exegesis.
Matthew’s identification of Jesus absolutely has to do with the scene in Nazareth, because Matthew expects the reader to interpret the crowd’s mistaken assumptions in 13:55–56 in light of the clarifications he gives elsewhere in his Gospel.

You don’t get to treat Matthew 13:55–56 as if it exists in a vacuum.

Matthew has already told the reader:

• Joseph is not Jesus’s biological father (Matthew 1:18, 20)
• James and Joseph are not Jesus’s biological siblings (Matthew 27:56)

Those are Matthew’s own corrections of the crowd’s genealogy.

So when the crowd in Nazareth says:

“Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas?”

Matthew has already told you that:

1. Joseph is not Jesus’s biological father, so the crowd is wrong on point one.
2. James and Joseph are not Jesus’s biological siblings, so the crowd is wrong on point two.

Both claims come from the same mistaken crowd in the same sentence.

You cannot say:

• “Matthew corrects the crowd about Joseph,” but
• “Matthew does not correct the crowd about James and Joseph,”

when Matthew explicitly corrects both elsewhere.

That is not “context.”
That is selective acceptance.


Matthew’s identification of Jesus elsewhere is exactly what tells us the crowd’s identification in Nazareth is mistaken.
That’s how narrative correction works.

You don’t ignore Matthew’s clarifications simply because they appear in a different chapter.

Matthew 27:56 is Matthew’s own genealogy.
It names James and Joseph — two of the “brothers” in 13:55 — as the sons of Mary of Clopas, not Mary the mother of Jesus.

And Mark 15:40, 16:1; Luke 24:10; John 19:25 all corroborate this.

So no — it is not a strawman.
It is Matthew correcting the crowd’s mistaken genealogy, and you cannot selectively accept one correction while rejecting the other.

 

[markalan]

Matthew 27:56 is Matthew’s own genealogy.
It names James and Joseph — two of the “brothers” in 13:55 — as the sons of Mary of Clopas, not Mary the mother of Jesus.

It is entirely without foundation to identify James & Joseph in Mat 27:56 with James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas in Mat 13:55.

The three women in Mat 27:56 had children with the same names:

Mary wife of Clopas
James and Joseph
Mary wife of Zebedee
James and John
Mary, wife of Joseph
Jesus, James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas

These three Marys, along with Mary of Magdala and Mary of Bethany, ought to make you see some names were very common.